Low-Cost/High-Impact: Success Skills Students Will Actually UseIntroductionArguably, the two biggest challenges facing engineering education are retention and, in general,student learning. Obviously, the two are interrelated but not necessarily simply by studentperformance-- generally indicated by grades. Not surprisingly, studies show there is a strongcorrelation between low GPA and students leaving engineering programs.[1-5] However, thereis also evidence of a broad range of GPAs of graduating students.[6,7] Whether or not theprimary focus of efforts to improve students’ performance are geared towards retention, suchefforts will also benefit all students.While there are many factors that affect students reasoning for leaving
Department as an Instructor and Department Chair before transitioning to his current role at Temple University. When Cory is not educating or researching, he enjoys backpacking, yoga, volleyball, and hiking with his family. More information about Cory can be found at www.bit.ly/corybud.Dr. Matt Gordon P.E., University of Denver Dr. Matt Gordon is Professor in the Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering. His research areas include numerical and experimental plasma physics, chemical and physical vapor deposition, elec- tronic packaging, and bio-medical engineering. He has supervised to completion 26 MSME students and 5 PhD students. Publications include 1 book chapter, 32 journal publications, 47 refereed
Engineering Education, 2022 Community-Engaged First-Year Learning CommunityIntroductionFirst-year programs lay the foundation and serve as the front door for engineering programs.They play a significant role in recruiting and retention of a diverse student body as well asproviding the foundational preparation for the upper levels of engineering programs. Programsoften integrate advising and students development with curricular preparation. Many programshave common first years that a foundation for all or most engineering majors within theinstitution, presenting challenges to meet the needs of multiple majors across engineering [1].Since the first year is critical for retention, many institutions have adopted initiatives that
program. The five components of the pedagogy are [1] . 1. Engagement opportunities that meet the needs of an underserved segment of society 2. Academic connection between the engagement and the subject material of a course. 3. Reciprocal partnerships where all benefit from the collaboration. 4. Mutual learning among all stakeholders, built on a foundation of respect. 5. Reflection on the experiences and its implications for the future.Research has shown many benefits for students across many disciplines [2-6]. Withinengineering, evidence shows learning across a broad set of profession and technical skills [7-11].Graduates report easier transition into professional practice and faster advancement in industrypositions [12
EngineeringIntroductionIt is well established that first-year engineering programs have far reaching impacts on the overall qualityof and student persistence in first-year engineering programs. Most of the attrition occurs during aprogram’s first year wherein approximately 24% leave for a non-engineering major or college altogether[1]. In addition, student performance in first-year courses can serve as a predictor for overall studentsuccess regardless of their understanding of course material [2,3]. The impact of student attrition on thefinances of academic institutions is well documented, however the impact on the students departing thediscipline can be far more drastic for the actual students. The financial burden on the withdrawn studentsgoes beyond just the
University of Arkansas to teach general Introduction to Engineering and to coordinator for the First-Year Honors Innovation Experience.Mr. Brandon Crisel, I am a 12 year veteran instructor at the University of Arkansas with a BS and MS in Mathematics with emphasis in Statistics and applied Math as well as an MS in Industrial Engineering. I began working in the Math Department, teaching service courses such as College Algebra, Math for Elementary Teachers 1&2, Mathematical Reasoning, and Finite Mathematics. I also helped spearhead the Math Department’s online initiative to create an online program for our service courses while simultaneously implementing a flipped course teaching method to the traditional classes. I
Society for Engineering Education, 2022Influences on the Choice to Study Engineering: Insights from a Cross-University StudyIntroductionTo improve how students are recruited into engineering, it is imperative for the engineeringeducation community to recognize and understand the factors that influence students’ choice topursue a degree in engineering. Research conducted within this area has identified numerousfactors reported by students to have influenced the choice to pursue engineering as a college major.These factors include math- and science-related interest [1-2], prior STEM experiences inelementary and secondary school [3], earning potential [1, 4-5], and positive self-assessment ofone’s math, science, and/or problem-solving skills [2, 6-7
two universities, Michigan Technological University (MichiganTech) and Montana Technological University (Montana Tech). Systems Engineering is notavailable at Montana Tech, and it is currently offered as a minor and pathway of study under theBachelor of Science in Engineering (BSE) degree at Michigan Tech. Student responses to thisopen-ended survey question were analyzed using deductive and inductive coding techniques toidentify common terms and emergent themes. When viewing the collective results, studentdefinitions of Systems Engineering most commonly referenced the following terms and themes:systems, modeling and design, project and systems management, and Systems Engineeringapplications.BackgroundDue to its relative newness as an ABET [1
and qualitative information that can be used to individuate student performancewithin teams [1]. To effectively address interpersonal issues in teams, it is important to detect theincidence and root cause of team conflicts.This paper investigates the prevalence of team conflicts in a large-enrollment introductoryengineering course. Using weekly CATME peer evaluation data, end-of-semester student polls,and final scores in the course, this study characterizes the type and incidences of team conflicts.Results indicate that “social loafing”—tendency for individuals to expend less effort whenworking collectively than when working individually—is a dominant issue, which has beenidentified in previous studies as the most prevalent problem within
shown that most first-year engineering programs include programming orcomputer tools courses in their first-year curriculum [1]. Many challenges occur in teachingcomputing and computer tools in first-year engineering education courses. Students’ preparationand prior experience vary significantly. Students demonstrate difficulty learning the concepts incomputing and applying those concepts to writing code in a specific language [2][3]. Forengineering students, there can be a disconnect between the learning outcomes desired byinstructors and students’ perception of the connection of writing code to their future profession.This disconnect can impact engineering students’ performance to write code. One of our majorlearning outcomes for our students
the ability to work together while solving an open-ended designproblem, and being able to overcome any obstacles that arise. These obstacles involve differingwork ethics, personalities, and communication styles. Inevitably, these differences can lead toconflict, and a need to resolve disagreements within the team. These ever-present emotionalaspects to working in a team are found not only in student projects, but also on the projects theywill be working on once they graduate. Finding the skills as a student to successfully navigatethe myriad of issues that may arise when working with others, sets student up for success in theirengineering careers after graduation, as shown by Jones (1996) [1] and Seat et al. (1996) [2].Often students who are
a growing number of STEM roles.Marginalized populations are disproportionately absent from these fields, which NationalScience Foundation (NSF) has sought to address through the funding of programs aimed atimproving STEM students’ success [1]-[2]. Thus, Baylor University created the Engineering andComputer Science (ECS) Scholars Program—a NSF-funded program to support the success ofhigh achieving, low income (HALI) STEM students. Because student success literatureoverwhelmingly evidences the positive relationship between involvement and success [3]-[4],this study explored how HALI STEM students in the ECS Scholars Program perceive andexperience involvement and success as related to their most salient identities.Guiding Research Question(s
GIFTS: Engaging First-Year Mechanical Engineering Students in Spreadsheets and ProgrammingIntroductionIn a course focused on introducing first-year mechanical engineering students to spreadsheetsand programming, there are many challenges to engaging students in the material. By nature,introductory programming courses are considered difficult by students [1] and student learningcan depend on the strategies employed to support the learning process [2]. This paper focuses onthe MEE 114L Introduction to Programming course at the University of Dayton and changes tothe course structure designed to improve student engagement and learning.Changes to Course StructureThe Introduction to Programming course is a 1 credit hour course for
the course of Winter and Spring quarters,there were 726 total student registrations for our midterm 1, 2 and finals EIG sessions. A commonsentiment expressed in student feedback is that they appreciate seeing additional practiceproblems, and there is easy access to a tutor to get instant feedback in their problem solving.Our hope is that by sharing our experiences, other engineering educators can utilize this virtualEIG model to expand their repertoire of resources for student success.
&T State University, respectively. His current research is in novel pedagogical methods for enhancing student learning of math and engineering. American c Society for Engineering Education, 2022 GIFTS: Introducing First Year Students to The Running Track Analogy of an Electric CircuitIntroductionThis Great Idea for Teaching Students (GIFTS) describes a teaching method used for introducingthe series electric circuit to under-represented minority engineering students. It is unique becauseof its teaching method for mathematics, and historically, is not used in FYEE programs [1]. Toooften a struggling first semester student has limited knowledge
3D printing work? Along withdiscussions related to computer programming and circuits, one lecture focused on what technology is required to live inspace / grand challenge problems. The course was offered concurrently as both 0-hour and 1-hour versions. Exampleassignments included using Scratch to create a simple video game and using software to make art. Food, snacks, or prizeswere sometimes provided by housing to attract additional students beyond those enrolled in the course. The special eventsfor Spring 2022 included: Introduction to TinkerCAD / 3D Printing, Scratch Game Design Competition, Breadboardingwith Arduino Nano, and a Team Bridge Competition. The Scratch coding environment from MIT serves as a glue for someof the assignments in
GIFTS: The secret is in the details. Improving oral presentation skills with a peer and self-assessed feedback module.Studies show that there is a need for effective oral communication for engineers in twoworkplace settings: a formal setting to advocate for products and ideas to upper personnel orclients and an informal setting to have confidence in voicing suggestions to a team [1]. AtNortheastern University, the Cornerstone of Engineering course is designed to teach first-yearengineering students fundamental skills including oral communication. Instructors have observedstudents come in with different background experiences, and many have notable weaknesses inoral presentation. As a result of this, a module was created to
those students without significantprior hands-on experience are not disadvantaged compared to other students. The familiarization projectis followed by an open-ended design problem within the domain. A grade incentive is given forinnovation beyond the essential requirements.Project 1: Solar-Powered Power Bank ChargerThe ultimate goal of this activity is the design of a photovoltaic charger for asmall power bank. In the initial familiarization activity students assemble andtest a photovoltaic powered device that can recharge AA batteries. Thisprovides familiarization with the hands-on procedures, materials, andmeasurements involved in this type of system.The familiarization is followed by an open-ended design challenge to designa PV system to
are to: 1) develop the academic andsocial skills necessary for achieving academic success; 2) acclimate students to the campusenvironment prior to their arrival as full-time students; 3) pair the students’ math ability with theappropriate Fall semester Calculus course; and 4) develop a cadre of students mutuallycommitted to each other’s success. SSBP students enroll in 7-week versions of Calculus,Chemistry, Physics and English courses. All instructors use collaborative learning, in whichstudents work in heterogeneous (in terms of ability level) teams, both in class and duringorganized study sessions. Students who pass the Summer Bridge English course receiveadvanced standing for English 1001. The SSBP ends with a Graduation Luncheon Ceremony
totally online environment in Spring 2021, due to COVID-19 restrictions, and ten teams thatoperated in person in Spring 2022. All teams consisted of students in their second semester ofcollege.The following research question was explored through this study: How does first-year design team development vary between online and in-person operation?Participants were asked to respond individually to a team development survey informed byexisting literature. The results indicated that most team members of both online and in-personteams considered their team to be in either the Performing stage or in a transition between theNorming and Performing stages. However, response bias was possible, as demonstrated in aprior study [1]. Examples of response
projects integrated with the undergraduate engineering curriculum. Dr. Surupa Shaw | Texas A&M University | Higher Education Center at McAllen TX I. INTRODUCTION The undergraduate engineering curriculum forms the fundamental knowledge base for our future engineerswho would be serving the global society. It is imperative for the undergraduate engineers to get a reality checkon the utility of their classroom knowledge that would help them shape their career path and would providethem a valuable appreciation of the course content. Phylis Blumenfeld et al. [1] emphasized on the compellingargument of making projects an integral part of the learning process, as they promote student
PurposeMany universities require a first-year cornerstone course for incoming engineering students, andBucknell University is no exception. The college-wide introductory course has been delivered ina seminar-based format to approximately 200 students each year since its last revision in the2002-2003 academic year [1], nearly 20 years ago. While the previous version was successful[2], opportunities for improvement became apparent in recent years. A redesign of the coursewas undertaken in 2020 and first implemented in Fall 2021. The purpose of this paper is todocument the process of the redesign and to share the “lessons learned” from the pilot offering ofthe newly revised course.Background InformationBucknell University is a predominantly
discuss challenges associated with engagement, the timingof the practices, and logistical issues. Overall, the results of this work encourage the integrationof mindfulness-based practices into introductory engineering courses as students perceive manybenefits. However, it is simultaneously necessary to recognize that implementing these practicescan be challenging for instructors. Future research should investigate the effects of implementingthese practices in other types of engineering courses like a first-year seminar course.IntroductionCollege students in the United States are reporting increased stress [1], likely due to greatereducational and environmental stressors [2]. This additional stress is compounding thesignificant stress already
Computer Science Student.” This was basedon work by Steffen Peuker and Raymond Landis [1]. This was also an individual project.Choose from a list of projects supplied by the instructor.MethodologySince there was a wide range of coding knowledge and ability, I ruled out programming projectsof any kind. I also found that asking the students to come up with their own project had twoproblems. Either the project was so simple it could be completed in a day, or it was so complexit would have required a large team and a year or more to finish.The non-electronic computation device was inspired by a paper by Paul Fishwick [2] and wasfun, but students mostly looked things up on the Web rather than doing creative work. I also sawthat these did not lend
points of contact, resources, and mentorship tobetter enhance their academic journey. In recent years, an increasing number of academic unitshave employed wrap-around advising practices to increase student persistence at the universityand in their chosen major. According to Hasenwinkel and Mack (2021), implementing a holisticwrap-around advising model at Syracuse University addressed several factors influencingmatriculation and graduation [1]. In this discussion, a wrap-around advising method has beendeveloped by a faculty member and a student success professional and implemented in a first-year civil engineering course. This wrap-around advising methodology involves a collaborativeand intensive process of fluid communication among the faculty